All of the localities listed above are localities particularly affected by the regulations."

Here is information on the second DEQ meeting on these proposed regulations:

Dec 4,2012

Tuesday

2:00 PM

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ):

PUBLIC HEARINGon Proposed Expansion of the Eastern Virginia Ground Water Management Area (Section 9 VAC 25-600 in the Virginia Administrative Code) to Expand this Management Area to Include the Counties of Essex, Gloucester, King George, King and Queen, Lancaster, Mathews, Middlesex, Northumberland, Richmond, and Westmoreland, and the areas of Arlington, Caroline, Fairfax, Prince William, Spotsylvania, and Stafford counties east of Interstate 95.

This is a lengthy message, but one I hope you'll read. You may think you won't be affected because you do not withdraw 300,000 or more gallons of water per month. But, think about future consequences of all this...the potential for ownership of all the groundwater by the government, the requirement that we would have to pay not only to have a well permitted and drilled, but also pay to withdraw the water. Where would it end?

Trudy

Rules are being proposed by Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to amend and further regulate groundwater withdrawals and management of groundwater for those entities withdrawing 300,000 or more gallons per month in certain counties east of I-95. Among the counties included are Middlesex, Mathews, Essex, King and Queen, Gloucester and King William.

The DEQ began receiving public comment on these proposals Oct. 22, 2012 and will be closed January 11, 2013. Comments can be posted online (see links below) or given at public hearing. The next public hearing will be Tuesday, Dec. 4, at 2:00 p.m. in Spotsylvania at the Holbert Building, Board of Supervisors meeting room, 9104 Courthouse Road.

You will note when you see the entire list of counties to be impacted by these regulations that neither of the public hearings are being held at a central location in the counties, but rather OUTSIDE the counties, which makes travel time and taking time from work to testify significant issues. Also, publicity about the proposed rules/amendments has been extremely limited (not published to my knowledge in any newspaper among the counties listed.)

I managed to get information published in the Southside Sentinel yesterday about the Dec. 4 hearing only because Tom and I quickly wrote and submitted a Letter to the Editor following our participation in the public hearing held Monday in Williamsburg, Nov. 26. Editor Tom Hardin plans to do a full story on the proposed rules/amendments and the consequences in next week's issue.

Tom and I testified at the first public hearing (of which we were aware). Our testimony is below. We were the only "public citizens" at the hearing. Middlesex County's Administrator Matt Walker testified on key issues and also asked that the comment and hearing time be expanded to allow more public input. He asked for a hearing to be held in a central location in our counties, such as Tappahannock.

Thank you for the opportunity to give my thoughts on proposed regulation of groundwater in Middlesex County.

Having found out about this hearing at the last Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission meeting less than two weeks ago, it is interesting that basically all political representatives to that body were deeply concerned about additional intrusion into their local jurisdictions.

For example, one county has been waiting for over two years to get approval for a groundwater well for a business that wants to relocate to their Virginia County. Two years later they are still waiting. Inquiries have been futile. Jobs are needed everywhere. The company could easily choose another state.

Our Delegate to the General Assembly attending that meeting expressed concern about the extended period of time needed for all paper flow at the Commonwealth level.

In our residential development we had application for two replacement wells approved, the wells drilled, pumps and piping with restrictors installed to reduce water flow, completed, and still over one year passed before we could get approval to put the water wells on line. The only reason for the replacement wells was the mineralization of two original wells thus reducing flow below the groundwater withdrawal level originally permitted and needed.

One question I have is the timing of this hearing. If a person has a concern as a tax paying resident of Middlesex County, you have to take a full day from work, sacrifice your pay, to try and save your property right of water under your property. That property right has been approved by the General Assembly twice and voter approved in the last election by a 75% margin. And yet I fail to see anyone identified here representing me the tax-paying citizen.

I would also mention that all information in the Middlesex County Comprehensive Plan relating to groundwater is a dozen years old or more, copied verbatim from the 2001 County Plan which was probably a year or more old in 2001. It's hard for me, as a citizen, to know what is current fact and what is a wild guess.

It was obvious to President Jefferson that errors had been made during the early settlement years of the 13 colonial states or commonwealths. With acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase he felt a need to correct those errors as much as practicable. One of those errors was water rights, another was mineral rights. No such action was taken regarding those rights in the 13 original states. It just might be a little late to start correcting that error in this proposed manner.

If the Commonwealth has yet to figure out that power lines can be buried, thus eliminating power loss to residences caused by falling trees, maybe this water management proposal is a tougher decision than you are properly ready to address.

As one of the many taxpayers in this country, we don't need another scheme to take more of our money and our rights away from us. We already have Social Security, Medicare, Post Office, and many more that as taxpayers we are expected to bail out. My concern is that those of us in the proposed management area will find ourselves without water unless we pay a high premium for it. That will destroy the value of our property. Then we are going to be forced to move to large metropolitan areas where government can assure us of an allotted amount of this precious liquid.

Maybe, just maybe, you need to give a lot more thinking to this proposal to make sure it serves the needs of the taxpayer, not the perceived need of Government.

What geologist, engineer, hydrologist was hired by the state to investigate, support and represent the position opposite to yours; i.e., that statewide, government management of groundwater is necessary?

My voice here is small. But, I and many like me are the ones who foot the bill for all this. I oppose these proposed regulations.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Trudy Feigum, citizen taxpayer

Hartfield District

Middlesex County, VA

Public Hearing: Expansion of Groundwater Management Area

I wish first to state that I believe the quantity and quality of groundwater is of the utmost importance for the future well-being of Middlesex County. I am responsible. I want to and try to be a good steward of the environment.

The purpose of these proposed regulations appears to be in one sentence: "Groundwater levels in[the] undesignated portion of Virginia's Coastal Plain are continuing to decline."

According to the Middlesex County Comprehensive Plan, adopted December 1, 2009, and revised April 20, 2010, "The Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, which underlies Middlesex County, stores more groundwater than any other geologic province in Virginia."

Further, "There are seven water-bearing aquifers underlying the County." "Groundwater flows very slowly. According to the United States Geological Survey, water within aquifers below the land surface in Middlesex County has been underground for an average of 2000 years." We know the groundwater fluctuates in times of drought and that it's rechargeable.

The county's comp plan goes on to state, "The continued withdrawal of large quantities of water has resulted in a steady decline of groundwater levels." In particular, "Zone D groundwater level declines have occurred as a result of significant groundwater pumpage by the … paper mill at West Point. The paper mill withdraws over 20 million gallons of water PER DAY from the ground. …As a result, the directional flow of groundwater, which naturally flows from southwest to northeast, has been reversed in Zone D where it now travels towards West Point."

Otherwise, it appears and is reported that Middlesex County's groundwater availability is adequate. If this is the case, why is the Commonwealth of Virginia not requiring an alternate water source for the paper mill? Why is it that if, as it is stated in these proposed regulations that the aquifers are all interconnected, must all citizens in Tidewater be negatively impacted, even penalized by this large user of groundwater? Why wouldn't this be the case in other nearby counties?

According to the DEQ, "groundwater levels in proposed management areas are continuing to decline two to four feet per year." Is the scientific research available to prove this, or has DEQ relied on computer models with their highly questionable estimated outcomes?

Middlesex County's adopted Regional Water Supply Plan states, "Middlesex County's groundwater is sufficient and rechargeable from rain. In 50 years this county will be using but 50% of its available groundwater."

Middlesex County's comp plan also states, "The Code of Virginia…permit(s) local jurisdictions to create groundwater protection area overlay districts in which land use regulations specifically designed to protect groundwater can be applied."

I believe these proposed DEQ regulations will remove governance from our elected officials in Middlesex and place more governance in the hands of faceless government employees.

Stated in the purpose of the proposed regulations is, "There are no disadvantages to the public from managing the groundwater resources." In almost the next sentence the statement is made, "All withdrawers of groundwater, unless exempted by statute, are required to obtain a permit, which places additional regulations on withdrawers of groundwater occurring within the management area."

In our housing development, a permit was obtained to drill two replacement wells due to mineral build-up and subsequent lack of flow. The permit was issued in a short span of time and work commenced. But, once the wells were completed and ready for use, it took over a year for DEQ to grant permission to withdraw water! Lack of adequate staff to complete the permitting process is a big disadvantage to me, the public. Now, due to further regulations on withdrawers, more time will be needed for the permitting process. At the same time, I see the proposed economic impact of results in an estimated increase of six employees at an estimated cost of $240,000. I am a taxpayer. This will directly impact me! After all is said and done, will I be assured a more timely response?

There will be further impact--how about the:

*Compliance cost on regulated users, application fee of $1200, and after 10 years, subsequent permits of $6,000?

*Aquifer test between $10,000 and $25,000?

*Geophysical log $1,200? Camera survey $1,000 to$2,000?

*Monitoring wells $50,000 to $100,000?

*Unknown costs to develop alternate water sources?

*Additional employment of six people @$40,000?

*Government entities paying higher costs passed along to their end users—that would be me!

*Pre-application meetings/more information required?

And you say there will be no impact on the citizens of this area? I beg to disagree!

I'm also concerned about "After 10 years current users may be required to

reduce their withdrawals or no permit will be issued in the future."

This tells me it is more than likely that the housing development where I live, although permitted for 500,000 gallons per month, based on the number of current residents and potential residents, may find itself able to withdraw less than what is currently being used. This begs the question: with government management will it be determined the groundwater is needed elsewhere and allowed to be diverted? Am I saying I believe the government wants to take full ownership of the groundwater in my county and this country? Yes, I am!

The potential economic impact of these proposed regulations left me scratching my head. There will be more government employees and potentially less "private" economic development. Am I to believe this is good?

It is stated, "There is insufficient data to accurately compare the magnitude of the benefits versus the costs." Verbiage goes on that benefits by far outweigh the costs. Then comes the statement, "Groundwater is a valuable economic resource due to its many beneficial uses."

Who better to determine its economic value than the government? And who better to benefit from the sale of this water than the government?

"Permit fees and compliance costs may reduce the use and value of private property in the proposed expansion areas." Who's representing me in this "acquisition of my property rights?"

I am a citizen. I own private property. That is what makes the United States different from any other country in this world—the right of our citizens to own private property! These regulations suggest that as valuable a resource as groundwater is to every single one of us, there could be a negative impact on private property with expanded management by the government. There is no way I could ever support the reduction—planned or accidental—of private property rights. I am, therefore, not in support of these proposed regulations to expand the DEQ's groundwater management area.

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving! My husband, children and I had a wonderful, low-key Thanksgiving. My husband, John and six year old son, Luke, played golf in the morning. The girls and I cooked from scratch our pie, rolls, stuffing, sweet potato souffle, and more! And when I say fresh, I mean taking the grain, making our own flour, and going from there. I think the guys had it the hardest though, since they had to clean all the dishes.

Unfortunately, I am writing to you this morning on a much more serious matter. I'm sure you have seen the recent developments in the news about our Republican Lt. Governor, Bill Bolling, abandoning the Republican Party, attacking Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and insinuating he may run as an Independent against Ken Cuccinelli for Governor. This is very disturbing and unbecoming behavior from a man who has represented our party for a long time.

As you may know, earlier this year grassroot conservatives decided to run for elected positions on the State Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia, so that we could have a voice in how business is conducted within the Republican Party. For too long the Republican Party has been dominated by big money, consultants, ideologues and politicians who have forced a top-down approach to politics. It was time to return to the Republican Party of Virginia that represented the voice of the Republican grassroot activists.

One reason it was important for grassroot conservatives to assume control of State Central Committee was to control the nomination method for our Republican candidates. Holding a Republican Convention is a preferred method to a Republican Primary in selecting our candidates, because then the grassroots choose the candidates rather than the big-money consultants with their multi-million dollar campaigns and slick TV advertising.

I wanted to forward you the press statement and letter I released this morning. I thought you would want to see it. If you desire, you can express your own thoughts to Bill Bolling directly by contacting him at 804.225.0750 or emailing at campaign@billbolling.com

I can promise you one thing about me: I will never stop fighting to ensure you have a voice and your rights are protected! As always, let me know if you have any questions.

Jamie Radtke, a well-known conservative figure in Virginia, today called on the State Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia to adopt a resolution calling on Lt. Governor Bill Bolling to repudiate his unfortunate statements made earlier this week about the character and electability of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. The Committee should resolve further that Governor Bob McDonnell should withdraw his delegation of responsibility to Mr. Bolling for economic development, if Mr. Bolling fails to repudiate his statements.

The State Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia will be meeting at the Republican Advance today, November 30th, at the Cavalier Hotel in Virginia Beach. To see Jamie's full letter to State Central Committee members, see below.

-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

Dear Members of State Central Committee,

I humbly request your consideration to adopt a resolution calling on Lt. Governor Bill Bolling to repudiate his unfortunate statements made earlier this week about the character and electability of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli as Governor. The Committee should resolve further that Governor Bob McDonnell should withdraw his delegation of responsibility to Mr. Bolling for economic development (Chief Jobs Creator) if Mr. Bolling fails to repudiate his statements.

Mr. Bolling's voting record and public positions vary little from those of Mr. Cuccinelli. Mr. Bolling's personal criticisms of Mr. Cuccinelli are groundless and would be just as offensive and outrageous if directed at a Democrat. Mr. Bolling has further stated to the media that he will refuse to support Mr. Cuccinelli as the Republican nominee for Governor at the conclusion of our Republican Convention in May, which is in direct violation of our Republican Party Plan. Conservatives have consistently demonstrated a willingness to abide by the process outlined in the Party Plan. The expectation should be no different with our elected officials.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this important proposal that will reaffirm our support and dedication to represent the Republican grassroots of Virginia. Family obligations will prevent me from being at your business meeting Friday afternoon, but I will be in attendance at the Republican Advance later in the day and Saturday.

Do you know of an event our 20,000+ subscribers should know about? Let us know at (703) 502-0161 or JTParmelee@aol.com. NOTE: Some event details may change after publication, so we recommend you check www.NorthernVirginiaGOP.com before attending.

12/9 - Monticello Council of Republican Women Christmas Party & 40th Anniversary Celebration - 2-5 PM, please call (703) 354-5888 to let them know what dish you will be bringing to share and (703) 323-5817 for directions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~We hope you enjoyed this issue of The Northern Virginia GOP AGENDA. Published by Parmelee Associates. Paid for in part and authorized by NorthernVirginiaGOP.com-The Northern Virginia Republican Political Action Committee, a nonprofit not affiliated with national, state or local GOP committees. Not authorized by a candidate. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or for questions, please contact JTParmelee@aol.com or call (703) 502-0161. Feel free to forward this and/or send us e-mail addresses or fax numbers for those you think would want a FREE subscription.

We hope you enjoyed this issue of The Northern Virginia GOP AGENDA. Newsletter disclaimer: Published by Parmelee Associates. Paid for in part and authorized by NorthernVirginiaGOP.com-The Northern Virginia Republican Political Action Committee, a nonprofit not affiliated with national, state or local GOP committees. Not authorized by a candidate. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or for questions, please contact JTParmelee@aol.com or call (703) 502-0161. Feel free to forward this and/or send us e-mail addresses or fax numbers for those you think would want a FREE subscription. Fundraising disclaimer: Paid for & authorized by NorthernVirginiaGOP.com-The Northern Virginia Republican Political Action Committee, a nonprofit not affiliated with national, state or local GOP committees. Not authorized by a candidate. Contributions not deductible for federal income tax purposes. Corporate contributions will be deposited in our state account. Federal law requires PACs to report name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer for each individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in a calendar year (VA reporting level is contributions aggregate in excess of $100 in a calendar year).~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* Take I-81 Exit 118 B (VA TECH EXIT) to 460 BYPASS
* Take the "CHRISTIANSBURG" EXIT
* Immediately take the "Downtown" exit
* Turn LEFT at the traffic light on to Cambria St.
* The restaurant is on the LEFT a few blocks down the street

This event is open to the public, so bring along family, friends, and co-workers.

We request an RSVP to include the number in your party who will be attending, so the proper amount of food and seating may be prepared. RSVP to: al@vcdl.org

Amelia's is known for the great food and service! Speaker to be announced. Come, bring a friend and enjoy an evening of fellowship with like minded folks!

Please contact Richard Kroh at NOVAgunshows@vcdl.org to help at
the Prince William County Fairgrounds in Manassas.

**************************************************
3. Did Hell just freeze over? Hey - is that a pig flying over that field?
**************************************************

An important story on how gun purchases are soaring while crime is dropping was written by Mark Bowes for the Richmond Times-Dispatch. I was interviewed and quoted in the story.

What's fascinating is the take by Andrew Goddard, president of the anti-libery group, Virginia Center for Public Safety. In the story, Goddard is saying that more "guns on the street" doesn't mean that there will be more crime. That contradicts every gun-control organization known to Man, all of whom have mindlessly insisted that more guns in the hands of citizens always means more crime.

Here are some of the key paragraphs by Goddard, each supporting his "more guns doesn't mean more crime" concept:

"'I'm not surprised that it would appear that more guns is going along with less crime, because there's been a downward trend in violent crime anyway,' said Andrew Goddard, president of the Virginia Center for Public Safety."

"Goddard said he would not have expected a rise in crime from a rise in legal gun sales, because legal gun buyers are not usually criminals - otherwise they would not pass a background check to get them. 'Predicting the actions of criminals by analyzing the behavior of legal gun buyers is not likely to be productive,' he said."

"'It's quite possible that you can sell a whole lot more guns and crime is still going down,' Goddard said. 'But is the crime going down because more people are buying guns, or is the crime going down because the crime is going down?'"

Gun-related violent crime in Virginia has dropped steadily over the past six years as the sale of firearms has soared to a new record, according to an analysis of state crime data with state records of gun sales.

The total number of firearms purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent from 2006 to 2011. When state population increases are factored in, gun purchases per 100,000 Virginians rose 63 percent.

But the total number of gun-related violent crimes fell 24 percent over that period, and when adjusted for population, gun-related offenses dropped more than 27 percent, from 79 crimes per 100,000 in 2006 to 57 crimes in 2011.

The numbers appear to contradict a long-running popular narrative that more guns cause more violent crime, said Virginia Commonwealth University professor Thomas R. Baker, who compared Virginia crime data for those years with gun-dealer sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

"While there is a wealth of academic literature attempting to demonstrate the relationship between guns and crime, a very simple and intuitive demonstration of the numbers seems to point away from the premise that more guns leads to more crime, at least in Virginia," said Baker, who specializes in research methods and criminology theory and has an interest in gun issues.

The significance of Baker's analysis was questioned by one of the state's ardent gun-control advocates.

"I'm not surprised that it would appear that more guns is going along with less crime, because there's been a downward trend in violent crime anyway," said Andrew Goddard, president of the Virginia Center for Public Safety.

One of Virginia's most outspoken gun-rights supporters, Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, was not surprised for a different reason.

"My opponents are constantly saying, 'If you got more guns on the street, there's going to be more crime.' It all depends on who has the handgun," Van Cleave said. "As long as it's going into the hands of people like you or me, there's not going to be a problem. Criminals are going to continue to get their guns no matter what."

At the request of The Times-Dispatch, Baker examined six years of data compiled by Virginia State Police through the Virginia Firearms Transaction Center that breaks down the number of gun transactions for every federally licensed firearm dealer in Virginia. It includes the number and types of guns they sought to sell based on requested state background checks of the purchasers.

Baker then compared the data with state crime figures for those years.

The data, Baker said, show a low probability that more guns in the hands of Virginians is causing more violent crime.

"So while it's difficult to make a direct causal link (that more guns are resulting in less crime), the numbers certainly present that that's a real possibility," Baker added.

The opposite - that more guns are causing more crime - cannot be derived from the numbers, he said.

"It's mathematically not possible, because the relationship is a negative relationship - they're moving in the opposite direction," Baker said. "So the only thing it could be is that more guns are causing less crime."

"From my personal point of view, I would say the data is pretty overwhelming," said Baker, who is new to VCU and studied under Florida State University professors Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, whose nationally recognized research on guns and homicides in the District of Columbia was cited in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2008 that overturned the district's handgun ban. "But we're pretty cautious in the social sciences in talking about causality. We only talk in probabilities."

The multiple years of data for gun purchases and gun-related crime help strengthen the premise that more gun sales are not leading to an increase in crime. Using what Baker calls the "lag model," the data show that an increase in gun purchases for one year usually is followed by a decrease in crime the next year.

Baker said a more detailed analysis may find pockets of the state where increased guns sales have been followed by an increase in gun-related violent crime.

"But I'm not interested in that small, nuanced component," he said. "As a scientist, you don't want to focus on individual instance. That's what gets people into making these overgeneralizations about things like some of the tragedies that have been gun-related in the United States."

The estimated number of gun purchases based on requested background checks rose from 243,251 in 2006 to a record-breaking 420,829 sales last year, according to gun-dealer transaction data compiled by state police through background checks. Over that same period, the total number of violent crimes in Virginia dropped from 23,431 offenses in 2006 to 18,196 in 2011.

The total gun purchases cover all types of firearms, including pistols, revolvers, shotguns and rifles. Similarly, total gun-related crime includes offenses committed with all types of guns, including firearms whose type was unknown.

Handgun-related offenses account for the majority of violent crimes committed in Virginia.

Because rifles and shotguns are used far less often to commit violent crimes, Baker said, one could argue that the purchase of those types of weapons is falsely inflating the total gun purchases in relation to total gun crime.

So Baker also examined the relationship between handgun purchases and handgun-related crime. He found a similar trend.

Handgun purchases in Virginia increased 112 percent from 2006 to 2011, but violent crimes committed with handguns fell by nearly 22 percent. When adjusted for population increases, handgun purchases rose a little more than 100 percent, but violent crimes committed with handguns dropped 26 percent, according to Baker's analysis.

Baker said this general pattern remains even if all crimes reported to police where the gun type was unknown are assumed to be handguns.

"In fact, if all unknown gun types used in violent gun crimes are assumed to have been handguns, then handgun-related violent crime decreased just over 24 percent from 2006 to 2011," he said.

However, Baker noted the pattern does not seem to hold in one crime category: aggravated assaults. Increases in gun purchases might increase the percentage of aggravated assaults involving a gun.

The data show that while the actual number of aggravated assaults decreased from 2006 to 2011, those committed with a gun increased nearly 2 percent. Baker said that's not surprising. Studies have shown similar results for an increase in the number of guns and an increase in the percentage of suicides by a gun.

The percentage of aggravated assaults in which guns are involved may increase, but it has little effect on the actual rate or number of those offenses, Baker said.

"This is why we do not see an increase in aggravated assaults associated with an increase in gun sales, but rather an increase in the percent of aggravated assaults which used a gun," he said.

Baker said some researchers suggest that the use of a gun in an assault increases the lethality of such encounters, and that a similar assault without a gun reduces the probability of a homicide occurring.

But Baker said it bears noting that Virginia's homicide rate, like violent crime generally, has dropped from 5.21 killings per 100,000 Virginians in 2006 to 3.77 per 100,000 in 2011.

Baker, who owns a handgun and had a concealed-carry permit when he lived and worked in Florida, described himself politically as "moderate to conservative." But he says his research is nonpolitical. "I try to think of myself as a scientist," he said.

Van Cleave, the gun-rights advocate, said Baker's analysis confirms what he already suspected.

"Doing what I do, I have my finger on the pulse of gun sales, and I know they've been soaring because I'm at gun shows and I've talked to dealers and all I hear is the stories about how guns are selling at a higher rate now than ever," Van Cleave said. Simultaneously, "we've been hearing in the news about how violent crime has been dropping in the United States for over a decade."

"Never before have you had so many new guns come into the market," Van Cleave said. "That probably helped (Baker's) analysis and dramatized more than anything that all those guns - for whatever reason - didn't make crime go up."

Gun-control lobbyist Goddard, whose son was wounded during the Virginia Tech massacre five years ago, doesn't dispute the numbers but questioned their significance.

"It's quite possible that you can sell a whole lot more guns and crime is still going down," Goddard said. "But is the crime going down because more people are buying guns, or is the crime going down because the crime is going down?"

Goddard said he would not have expected a rise in crime from a rise in legal gun sales, because legal gun buyers are not usually criminals - otherwise they would not pass a background check to get them. "Predicting the actions of criminals by analyzing the behavior of legal gun buyers is not likely to be productive," he said.

What is more significant, Goddard said, is that the large reduction in violent crime has not produced an equivalent reduction in total gun deaths and injuries.

"If you look at the numbers of people who are dying from guns every year, including suicides and accidents, then you're not going to see a difference," he said. "Gun sales are going up, and the annual death rate in Virginia is staying pretty much constant."

Baker said the perception that guns cause crime is pervasive because criminals use an effective tool to carry out their misdeeds.

"It does an effective job for what it's supposed to do," he said. "And because criminals use them, I think it becomes a hot-button issue, it becomes a political issue. And people focus on the wrong component of what the problem is."

"Instead of trying to figure out why are these people committing crimes - and using the most effective tool to commit those crimes - they focus on the tool," he continued. "So the gun is causing the crime."

VCDL President Philip Van Cleave will be speaking about the proposed legislation which concerns your gun rights in the 2013 General Assembly session. He will also speak about VCDL's Lobby Day at Capitol Square in Richmond on January 21st, where you, the gun owner, play an integral role in advancing our gun rights.

Lawyer and firearms enthusiast Keith Finch of the Creekmore Law Firm invites you to come and learn about NFA Gun Trusts. He will explain how such a trust can help you protect your privacy, reduce paperwork, and protect your family and friends from inadvertently violating the law should they come into contact with or possession of your lawfully-owned automatic, short-barreled, or otherwise restricted firearms or AOWs ("Any Other Weapon"). Learn what options they have should you become incapacitated or pass away and how an NFA Gun Trust can help reduce the risk of legal charges when allowing others to use restricted items.

VCDL Executive Member and firearms instructor John Wilburn will update us on new opportunities to volunteer for VCDL and also talk about upcoming local events in Southwest Virginia for 2013. John will also have TWO drawings for a free registration in his handgun carry class valued at $75 each. The winners may use their registrations or give them to a friend or family member who needs to satisfy his or her training requirement for a Concealed Handgun Permit.

Here is a story about an attempted abduction of a UVa student. Her abductor meant business, including having a ski mask and handcuffs! Luckily she got away and the police caught the bad guy.

But she didn't obey the advice set out by the UVa Chief of Police, which is to just give the criminal what he wants, don't resist. Based on that, the University expected her to just get in the van quietly and let the bad guy handcuff her. Is this what the Chief would want his wife or daughter to do if this had happened to her instead?

Grim details emerging from search warrants filed in Charlottesville Circuit Court detailing the attack and attempted abduction of a UVa student last Friday. Matthew Rene Beaulieu, a 26-year-old Lake Monticello resident, has been arrested and charged with abduction with intent to defile.

The victim, a 19-year-old UVa student told police she noticed a car following her home around midnight on Stadium Road. She told police a man wearing a ski mask jumped out of car and tried to handcuff her and pull her into the vehicle. She fought him and off and ran to call police with a description of the vehicle.

Police recognized the 2003 Hyundai Santa Fe on Interstate 64 and pulled the car over on the 120 exit. According to police documents, Beaulieu told police he had attacked a woman and was glad that he had gotten caught. He went on to say he had been lonely after his girlfriend broke up with him and wanted company. According to police, Beaulieu admitted he was planning to sexually assault the victim.

Beaulieu is being held at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Jail without bond. He is facing one felony charge of abduction with intent to defile, which carries a minimum sentence of 20 years in prison. Beaulieu is scheduled to be back in court on January 3rd, 2013.

----

Here is UVa's standard advice on dealing with a criminal attack:

While becoming a victim of crime is never the fault of the victim, the National Crime Prevention Council has established the following list of practices that may help safeguard individuals from becoming victims of crime:

Stand tall and walk with confidence. Watch where you are going and what is going on around you. [PVC: Hopefully you are a good actor, since you really ARE helpless thanks to the University! After disarming students, the University cheerfully says, "No need to thank us!"]

When you are out late at night, have a friend accompany you. Avoid going out alone. Also, let someone know where you are going and when you will return.

Call 911 immediately to report suspicious or criminal activity. The information that you provide and the timeliness of the information you provide to police will help them identify the suspect(s).

Be aware that alcohol and other drugs inhibit your ability to be fully aware of your surroundings. Look out for friends who have consumed alcohol.

Avoid isolated areas and walking alone at night. Use SafeRide (434-242-1122), walk with friends, or take a late-night weekend bus.

Be aware of your surroundings. Do not let a cell phone conversation or listening to music distract you when crossing the street or in another situation that calls for your full attention.

If you are on Grounds and need help, just pick up one of the blue-light telephones. You automatically will be connected to University Police.

Trust your instincts about a person or situation. If you feel uncomfortable, immediately report your concerns to police by calling 911. The police want to emphasize you are not "bothering" them if you call. They definitely want you to call if you see something suspicious.

During a robbery:

DO NOT RESIST! Cooperate! Give the suspect(s) whatever he or she asks for: wallet, keys, jewelry, credit cards or whatever. Your life is more valuable than replaceable possessions. Focus on his or her physical characteristics, i.e. clothing description, height and weight, and last known direction of travel. [PVC: And if he wants your life? Give him that, too?]

Don't make any sudden, unexpected moves. A nervous criminal may think you are reaching for a weapon. [PVC: You would be safer if you were reaching for a weapon. Too bad UVa banned them!]

If the suspect claims to have a gun, knife, razor or whatever, never try to force the bluff.

Never try to be a hero and apprehend the criminal yourself.

Notify police immediately by calling 911. [PVC: If you are still alive and the criminal didn't take your cell phone, of course.]

Virginia Tech police are investigating an assault and attempted abduction that reportedly took place on campus early Saturday.

A resident of Slusher Wing told police she heard a man screaming outside the building just before 1:30 a.m., according to a crime alert issued by campus police.

When the resident looked out her window, she saw a white male wearing a white T-shirt and jeans lying on the ground in the parking lot behind Slusher Tower with another white male sitting on his neck, the alert states.

The resident said the man on the ground appeared to pass out, but she said he tried to fight back when he was approached by two other males, who tried to pick him up. The resident told police the two males carried the victim to Slusher Tower.

It was unclear whether the males who approached the victim were trying to help him or were involved in the attack, the alert states.

The suspect is described as a white male, about 5 feet 10 inches tall and of average build, who was wearing jeans and a dark beanie with a stripe. The alert states a silver car with four males inside was seen speeding away from the area.

Election day clearly spelled out that America has become an "us vs. them" society. The "them," meaning those who are receiving government entitlements, now outnumber the "us" who do not, and they outvoted us. The election had almost nothing to do with guns, and our core voters apparently didn't show up at the polls. Mitt Romney got two million less votes than McCain did in 2008. We lost the election before it started, because Mitt, as Rush Limbaugh recently pointed out, ran on a platform of hard work, what many of us believe is the only thing that will bring America back from the precipice of destruction on which we now stand.

Obama ran as Santa Claus again. This time Santa even had free birth control pills. How do you beat that? Thomas Jefferson once said, "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those willing to work and give to those who would not." If you saw the polls at 11am in Miami-Dade county, when "those who work" were mostly at work, it is easy to see how our democracy ceased to exist on Tuesday. The election was bought and paid for by Santa Claus, with our own money, but everyone should understand that nobody in those long lines cared about taking away our guns, or pretty much anything besides not losing their government checks. America will not change. The powers that be will continue to demonize American capitalism and sell our future to China. And at some point our empty service based economy will most likely collapse, but that's a story for another day, and it has little to do with guns for now.

We are here to talk about guns, and what will most likely be a frenzy for the next year or two in the gun and ammunition market, as people buy up everything they can afford, in fear of losing the ability to do so later. This is a foolish approach, and we should not be crying wolf over guns today. Doing so in 2008 cost us a great deal of votes, especially women votes. Here in 2012, if we are smart, we will all keep our heads and wait for Obama to create his own "I told you so" moment.

There is no imminent threat to gun ownership of any kind. At the heart of Obama's threat to the 2nd Amendment is the Supreme Court. Obama has had the chance to replace two Supreme Court Justices during his first term. He appointed Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Both of them are anti-2nd Amendment moonbat zealots. In his second term he will most likely choose at least one more, and long after he has left office, long after all of Obama's band-aid bailouts and tax increases have failed and faded, his legacy will be these justices. And they will, without any doubt whatsoever, have an anti-gun majority. We won a couple battles with the Heller and McDonald decisions, but the gun haters and power drunk government bureaucrats will find the next avenue from which to attack our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, of that you can be sure. But in the next round, after Obama's judges have taken over the court, we will lose. That has been Obama's plan from the start. If you didn't vote in this election, this is your legacy. For those of us who did vote, as Dick Morris just wrote in a column, we were beaten from the start.

Therefore, again, there is no imminent threat to gun ownership, "assault weapons," or anything else to do with firearms or 2nd Amendment freedom. If Obama is planning to re-instate the assault weapons ban, he will most likely wait until the second half of his term, hoping for a flip over in the House of Representatives. Today there is no political willingness to pass anything related to restricting guns in any way, and anyone who pays more than fair market utility value for an AR-15, AK-47, FAL, M1A, etc., is a fool. If you are active on discussion boards, especially local boards for your gun club, please take the time to assure the casual gun owners and shooters out there that Obama isn't going to rush to take away their guns. Anyone who says so is just crying wolf again, or trying to make money off of you.

There will be "behind the scenes" attempts at attacks on gun ownership and self defense in this term from Obama. Obama himself promised this methodology in his last term. Most likely there will be attempts to restrict ammunition, and most likely he is going to try to go after inexpensive handguns, as he said in the debate. Part of keeping the permanent victim class in the inner cities is to make sure that the criminals have all the guns, and restricting cheap guns is the way to do that. If we handed out ten thousand free Cobra revolvers in Chicago with one cylinder of .38 Special each, the murder rate would decline to almost zero. Obama doesn't want that, and neither do our increasingly militarized police forces. The permanent victims now have the right to own guns because of the work of the NRA in winning the Heller and McDonald cases, so Obama and the anti-gunners will now make sure that guns are priced out of reach.

The most important thing is for all of us to keep our heads and come to terms with the fact that the next four years is going to pass, and Obama is going to the President of the United States. But in 2016 there will be another election, and three years from now we will be mobilizing the pro-2nd Amendment voters to elect a Constitutional, gun loving candidate again. And again we will be reminding everyone that gun freedoms are not guaranteed forever by the 2nd Amendment, and that we need to elect politicians who will rule in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. Even if by that time we do have a Supreme Court that is dangerously anti-Constitutional and anti-American, it takes a legislative branch to create laws, and eliminate old bad laws, and it takes an executive branch to enforce those laws, often as they see fit. The executive branch police force on guns, the BATFE, recently ran a fraudulent operation to demonize gun dealers. Politicians are always going to be politicians. But in a year and a half we'll be trying to defend the House of Representatives, and in three and a half years it'll be primaries time for president again. Time moves forward, and so will we.

We can't do that if all of the gun lovers out there cry wolf again and drive the gun market crazy for no reason. Young voters are watching, margin voters are watching, and most importantly, women voters are watching. There was a 20 point margin between male voters and women voters this election. In the light of free birth control pills it was easy for women to dismiss the 2nd Amendment argument, even if they were shooters, because everyone cried wolf in the last election. If you are a woman reading this, you probably have friends who made this exact balance sheet before voting, and then voted for Obama. Getting in their face now to tell them the horrors of what they did isn't going to accomplish anything at this point. The future of our country has been sold for sixty bucks a month in birth control pills. But there is hope. You can fool all of the people some of time, not all of the time, and at some point, the history of the reproductive rights movement will see the light of day, and it isn't a pretty history.

If you read the comments on our article asking people to Vote for Mitt, it is clear that the gun gold rush of 2008 had extremely negative impacts on perceptions for this 2012 election. Those who commented that Obama did nothing in his first term to hurt guns rights were fooled, but America is apparently composed of 52% fools, so you don't have to look too far to find one, even among gun owners. You would have to have lived in a cave for two years to not have heard about Fast & Furious, but it takes a thinking person to understand the implications of that program. It also takes a thinking person to realize the importance of Supreme Court appointees when discussing the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. Don't forget the attempted international arms treaty, which was revived literally the day after the election, no bullshit. American is short on thinking people these days, and long on fools. We don't need to add to the total buy crying wolf on guns again.

Nobody can control price gougers, but the only way they will succeed is if people pay their prices. So far, things have been brisk here at GunsAmerica, but we haven't seen any serious price gouging. In 2008 it didn't happen right away either though. The mainstream media will put articles out over the coming weeks about gun shortages most likely, and that will get the ball rolling, but only if we let it. At present the market is full of ARs and plastic pistols, and ammunition is plentiful. The states govern most firearm law, and 30 of the states now have Republican pro-gun governors, many with Republican legislatures as well. Most likely, concealed carry and other pro-gun measures will improve in the short term, and there is no imminent threat to gun ownership whatsoever.

If you own stock in Ruger or Smith & Wesson, our two beloved public companies in the gun world, you probably won't be a fan of us banging the drum for restraint, but the best thing for the future of our gun freedom is to look to 2016, and to practice restraint when it comes to crying wolf over Obama and guns. The "I told you so" will come, and when it does, remind people that they sold their vote for a government check, or for free birth control pills, or for an abortion they will most likely never need. They did, and they were foolish to do so. Hopefully we can recover from it.

The future of America transcends race, gender and class, and we are truly all in this together. A lot of people out there are hurting right now, and even those who have weathered the storm are mostly working twice as hard for half as much. We all wish things could be better for all of us, and we really are all in this together. The real America is color blind, gender blind and even sexual preference blind, and it has no interest in a permanent victim class propagated by government checks and complete disarmament of inner city minorities. We all want to be free and live a good life, able to protect ourselves from harm, and we want our neighbors to do the same. The Bill of Rights had to be added to the Constitution after the fact because the rights it contained were thought at the time to be self evident. Fortunately the Founding Fathers realized that someone would someday attempt to take them away, so they wrote them down. Number 2 on that list, right after the fundamental right to free speech, was the ability to protect all of the personal rights in the Constitution with arms. We took a big hit on Tuesday, and though America appears to be on a downward spiral, we may yet persevere.

Owners of guns have been stocking up because they are concerned about a potential tightening of regulations on assault weapons in the president's second term.

In October the number of background checks on people applying to buy guns, an indicator of future sales, increased by 18.4 per cent.

There was a similar jump when President Obama was first elected in 2008. A total of 12.7 million background checks were carried out that year, up from 11.2 million the year before, and the number has been rising since then.

The gun control debate in America was re-ignited by the July 20 massacre at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado, in which suspect James Holmes is accused of killing 12 people and injuring 58 during a screening of Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises." He used a semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round magazine.

During the election campaign Mr Obama mostly steered clear of discussing gun control, but in a presidential debate on Oct 16 he gave his clearest statement yet on the issue.

He said: "What I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced."

President Bill Clinton introduced had restrictions limiting the use of semi-automatic weapons in 1994, but the ban expired in 2004. Under the Clinton-era ban magazines with more than 10 rounds, and weapons with threaded barrels, pistol grips and bayonets were prohibited.

Mr Obama would still have to get any new restrictions past Republicans in Congress, but gun owners say they fear a limiting of their right to bear arms which is enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

He said: "We're going from normally six to eight guns a day, to 25. I stocked up, I got a stockpile of these AK-47s, we're selling these like hot cakes. Luckily I had an idea of what was going on because it happened with Clinton."

Mr Bernstein said he normally orders up to 7,000 rounds a week from distributors but could now only get hold of 3,000 because of demand.

John Kielbasa, owner of Fernwood Firearms in Hankins, New York, told CNN: "Sales are up. I had a guy waiting here first thing in the morning (the day after the election.) He came in, bought two AK-47s. It's going to be good for me for business."

"The Nation's Gun Show" features more than a thousand tables full of guns, knives and ammunition. A record number of people are expected out this weekend

"Obama has probably been the best gun salesman that I've had in the 34 years that I've been in business," said Jerry Cochran, the owner of Trader Jerry's.

Cochran said the demand for semiautomatic rifles is now being stoked by memories of stiff gun regulations under President Bill Clinton's administration.

"This is a Colt AR15," Cochran pointed out. "It was banned in 1994 until 2004, because it had a threaded barrel, a bayonet lug, a collapsible stock and a magazine capacity that could hold more than 20 rounds."

A shootout with military-style guns just feet from her sleeping 8-year-old daughter and 1-year-old son was the last thing a New Orleans dentist expected when she woke from a restless sleep Wednesday about 3:30 a.m. in her eastern New Orleans home. As the 34-year-old woman checked on her husband, who was up late working on his computer, the couple was startled to hear their home alarm system suddenly beep: A window in their garage gym had been opened.

Her husband, also a dentist, pulled up his computer surveillance footage from the family's security cameras surrounding their property in the 5600 block of St. Helena Place. The couple watched in horror as three masked men dressed in black worked to pry open their window. One of the men held a 3-foot-long assault rifle. A fourth man stood guard behind the house, outside the back door.

The husband ran for his guns. "Go call the cops," he told his wife, trembling. She dialed 9-1-1. But it would be a long 15 minutes before police arrived, she said later.

"We were so scared, we were shaking," said the wife. Fearing another attack, she and her husband, 38, spoke with The Times-Picayune on condition of anonymity.

The robbers popped off the window within about five minutes. Once inside the garage, one of them opened the door leading to the kitchen.

Crouching behind a living room couch, the husband fired several shots at the robbers. The robbers returned fire with an automatic weapon and another gun. Bullets flew through the air, lodging into walls, paintings, the refrigerator, even a wedding portrait of the couple. A bottle of champagne was hit, sending it exploding onto the floor. At least five bullets traveled through two sets of walls.

"I can't believe the bullets they're using. We would never survive this," the wife said hours later, as she pointed to the holes left in her refrigerator. "These people meant business. They were not afraid to kill."

After a few minutes of shooting, the robbers fled, squeezing out of the window they had initially opened. One of them left behind a pistol and a holster. Those, along with the home's surveillance videos, were turned over to the police.

The victims said they were "very disappointed" with the NOPD's response time. The wife said her phone call with the 911 dispatcher lasted 15 minutes before police arrived. "If we'd waited for NOPD, we'd be dead," the wife said.

NOPD spokeswoman officer Hilal Williams, however, said the department's response time was "acceptable" -- officers were dispatched to the scene at 4:09 a.m. and the first units arrived at 4:18 a.m. Williams acknowledged that "10 minutes can feel like forever when you're in that type of situation," but still, she said, the reality is "we just can't possibly have cars outside every house."

Just hours earlier a few miles away, New Orleans police had investigated another home invasion where shots were fired. In that incident, a woman leaving a home in the 9100 block of Morrison Road was accosted by two men as she walked to her car. She ran back inside the house, the men followed her, and shots were fired, according to an NOPD daily crime log. No other information about that incident was available Wednesday.

Citing ongoing investigations, police at a public crime meeting in the 7th District, which patrols eastern New Orleans, declined to say Wednesday whether they believe the two home invasions could be related.

The St. Helena Place victims said they were shocked that the robbers were undeterred by their 10-foot fence, four cars in the driveway, signs warning of their security alarm system and visible cameras.

Before jumping through the home's window, one of the robbers took a final drag of his cigarette, pinched the end and dropped the butt into his pocket -- an action the wife took to be preventative of leaving DNA evidence. "This was not their first time," the wife said. "These were professionals."

The couple is now considering moving to Jefferson Parish, where they feel they will be safer. Worried about another horrifying attack, the wife said she gave strict instructions to her 8-year-old daughter: "Go under the bed. Don't move. Don't do anything. It doesn't matter if Mommy and Daddy are dead -- you have to protect yourself."

**************************************************
12. Just give the criminal what he wants and get shot anyway
**************************************************

The UVA Police Chief likes the idea of giving the criminal what he wants. That concept didn't work so well up in Maryland.

LAUREL, Md. - Anne Arundel County police are looking for a man who shot a Wal- Mart employee during a robbery at a Laurel store.

Police say the 28-year-old employee was shot after 4 a.m. Wednesday, but his wounds aren't life-threatening.

Police believe a suspect entered the store overnight in the 3500 block of Russett Green East, approached the employee and demanded money. The employee complied with the demand, but was shot in the parking lot after being forced outside by the gunman.

Police say the gunman fled, but authorities are investigating a possible connection between the shooting and a car that was found on fire nearby.

The suspect is described as a white man, with a dark mask, black pants, a black jacket and a gray or white hooded sweatshirt.

The charges stemmed from an investigation Aug. 4 near the 7-Eleven at 4720 Hampton Blvd. when police stopped the occupants of a vehicle and questioned them. Edwards said he had a loaded handgun in the glovebox.

A change in Virginia law approved by the General Assembly in 2010 allows guns to be secured in a vehicle's glove box or in a container or compartment in the vehicle whether they're loaded or unloaded. Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued an advisory opinion in May saying the container need not be locked.

Edwards' attorney, Kevin Martingayle, said he wrote a letter to the officer who charged Edwards and the officer agreed.

"In my opinion, the two charges should not have been brought, but to the credit of the police officer and the commonwealth's office, they agreed to dismiss them," Martingayle said. [PVC: Credit for what - putting Te through hell and costing him a bundle in attorney fees? No, as usual the City of Norfolk shows itself to be an unprofessional laughing-stock.]

IF this is true, not only did the U.S. Government tell gun dealers to sell guns to the Mexican drug-cartels, but the U.S. Government may have actually given guns to the cartels directly. Compared to the U.S. Government, Norfolk is now looking pretty good.

The testimony of a Mexican hitman turned government witness has revealed some astonishing details of life inside Mexico's criminal underworld. Most astonishing of all: claims that cartel assassins obtained guns from the U.S. Border Patrol.

According to Mexican magazine Revista Contralinea, the testimony comes from a protected government witness and former hitman, who cooperated in the prosecution of a Sinaloa Cartel accountant by the Mexican Attorney General's Office. The testimony details a series of battles fought by a group of cartel members attempting to drive out rival gangsters from territory in Mexico's desert west. To do it, the group sought weapons from the U.S., including at least 30 WASR-10 rifles - a variant of the AK-47 - allegedly acquired from Border Patrol agents.

If true, it could reignite the debate over Operation Fast and Furious, the last time U.S. authorities allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican gangsters. Two days after the election, Attorney General Eric Holder - who had been at the center of allegations surrounding the scandal - is now talking like he might not stay with the administration for much longer. "That's something I'm in the process now of trying to determine," Holder said Thursday. "I have to think about, can I contribute in a second term?"

Though we don't know if the informant, who goes by the pseudonym "Victoria," is telling the truth about gangsters getting guns from the Border Patrol. (A spokesperson for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which oversees the Border Patrol, tells Danger Room that the agency is checking on the claim.)

The witness named "Victoria" first joined a Sinaloa Cartel enforcer group called Gente Nueva, or New People, in 2009. Within Gente Nueva, the witness worked for smaller group called the Javelins. Their job, over 2009 and 2010, was to eliminate groups of rival Zetas and Beltran Leyva Organization members that had seized Sinaloa Cartel turf in Mexico's desert west. The enforcers moved by convoy, ranging from 20 to 80 trucks and SUVs with five or six gunmen in each, and fought a series of pitched battles over control of the area's "plazas," or hubs for moving cocaine and marijuana.

"The instruction was to kill them all," the witness said.

In July 2010, gun battles erupted a few hours south of the Arizona border near the towns of El Saric and Tubutama. "We moved in 20 trucks with five gunmen in each, trying to enter the town of Zaric [sic] - four hours distant from Nogales - at five in the morning to find homes where there were Los Zetas," the witness said. "But we were ambushed and sparked a confrontation that lasted two hours."

The fighting was remote and sparsely reported. Los Angeles Times reporter Richard Marosi was one of the few to make it in, and described the fighting in the area as a "siege of medieval proportions that has cut off a region about the size of Rhode Island." Beltran Leyva fighters, isolated in small towns by patrolling Sinaloa Cartel convoys, were literally being starved out. Some of the fighting was estimated to include more than 100 gunmen on a side, or around the size of a U.S. infantry company. During fighting in the border city of Nogales the previous year - across the border from the Arizona city of the same name - gunmen took to marking their vehicles "with an X in the body to distinguish the opposing side."

At one point, the witness was ordered to help dig up and rebury two police officers killed for assisting a rival cartel. In December 2009, the group set out in an 80-vehicle convoy to patrol Nogales. Trucks scattered and the group fought "several clashes in different places" over a period of three days, and executed several captured Zetas. Another patrol elsewhere in the state had to be called off after authorities mobilized and set up checkpoints on the roads.

The Javelins' leader, Jose Vazquez or "Wild Boar" also seems to have been in charge of a pretty sophisticated operation. The group fielded escort teams for carrying weapons shipments and controlling drug trafficking routes, and teams of 12 for smuggling marijuana across the border. Cocaine was flown in from southern Mexico before being smuggled. They even had one command-and-control station for monitoring cameras placed along key highways.

Underneath Vazquez, according to the witness, was a deputy in Tucson in charge of smuggling weapons from the United States. Another deputy in Mexico was in charge of receiving the weapons. There was a deputy tasked with "cooptation of [Mexican] authorities" on the local, state and federal levels. Vazquez also had an accountant responsible for "organizing the logistics of fighting with other cartels," paying for weapons including those allegedly obtained from the Border Patrol, and managing salaries. (The witness had a salary of $6,000 per month.)

We don't know if the witness is telling the truth. And even if he or she is, we're still not sure who the cartel had on the inside or who within the Border Patrol was selling guns.

**************************************************
15. Who needs a gun in a D.C. convenience store?
**************************************************

WASHINGTON - Two men and a woman were shot inside a Market Place convenience store located at a BP gas station in Northeast D.C. around 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday.

According to a report from FOX 5, police say the victims were shot in the arm and the leg and suffered non-life threatening injuries. One of the male victims worked in the store, located on Benning Road near 44th Street.

The shooting occurred over what was described as a customer dispute.

"Apparently we believe he wasn't being served fast enough," Inspector David Taylor of the Metropolitan Police Department told FOX 5.

"We don't know just yet - this is something we are investigating, but it rose to the level of him ultimately firing several rounds inside the convenience store," he said.

Police are currently looking for the suspect who fled the scene in a black Mercedes Benz. The suspect's vehicle was later found near Blaine and 49th streets after colliding with a Dodge Caravan on the corner and crashing into cars parked on the side of the street, FOX 5 reports.

One witness to the scene of the crash did not see the driver, but said his aunt saw somebody run down an alley shortly after the collision.

At last report, FOX 5 says the victims, who have not been identified, were hospitalized in relatively serious condition.

A Longview woman who was walking at Lake Sacajawea with her 6-year-old son pulled a gun on a man who exposed his genitals to her Wednesday evening, according to police.

The 35-year-old woman was near Martin Dock around 8:10 p.m. when the man approached her "aggressively," sat down and began performing a sex act, then suggested she should watch him, according to the woman and accounts from police.

The woman, whose name is being withheld by the paper because she is the victim of a sex crime, said she has never before brought her gun, a Ruger .380, with her to the lake, but she grabbed it on her way out the door Wednesday because it was foggy and dark.

"I just had a feeling," she said.

It was one of at least two similar incidents that occurred within six hours in Longview. A man exposed himself to a woman in the parking lot of Winco Foods, at the Triangle Center in Longview, at 2:09 a.m. Thursday, then left in a blue Honda, driving toward Ocean Beach Highway on 15th Avenue, according to another police report.

The woman who encountered the man at Lake Sacajawea said she saw the man fumbling with his belt as he approached her and her son at Martin Dock. "Miss, miss," he said, according to the woman. "Could you watch this? You need to watch this."

As the man fled, she said she sent her dog, a well-trained Norwegian Buhund Hound, after him. In time, the dog had the man cornered at the gate to Lions Island near Kessler Boulevard. She called her dog back, and the man disappeared into the darkness.

Asked how her son reacted to all of this, she said: "I had him turn and face toward me. I stayed calm. I didn't raise my voice. I don't think he knew what was going on."

Police still hadn't found the man Thursday evening but are investigating several suspects, Sahim said. The woman called police later in the evening, saying she was looking at an online database of local sex offenders and believed she recognized the man she encountered at the lake.

The man involved in the Lake Sacajawea incident was described as a white male in his early 20s with short dark-blond hair and wearing a gray hoody and dark blue jeans.

The man who exposed himself in the WinCo parking lot was described as a white male with blond hair and wearing a gray hoody. [PVC: And "soiled" pants. ;-) ]

The badge-heavy police officers in this video are an embarrassment to their force. What should have been a 10-second encounter was stretched out to 12 minutes of shear harassment. No, not Norfolk this time, but Philadelphia.

RICHMOND, Va. (WTVR) – Just days after President Obama was re-elected to a second term, hundreds of gun owners flocked to Richmond International Raceway for the Richmond Gun Show.

Many people planned to get their hands on a weapon and ammunition. However, the possible re-emergence of legislation banning assault weapons made some people worry.

"I like to obtain a firearm in case it does become illegal," Vonda Lillard, a gun rights supporter, said.

Lillard bought a gun for the very first time.

"I would like to have one for my protection," Lillard said. "If they're made illegal, only the criminals will have them."

Ken Moore said a possible ban on firearms is all hype.

"Three million registered guns in America," Moore said. "It's enough for every man, woman and child to have a gun." [PVC: That should have been three-HUNDRED million firearms. And 99% are NOT registered.]

Not everyone at the gun show believed that firearms are necessary. They told CBS 6′s Sandra Jones that there needs to be tighter gun control laws.

Stern supports gun rights, but wants to see stricter laws to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

"There shouldn't be that kind of openness to purchase a gun and own it and to do what they want with it," Stern said. "Look at the violence… they've had guys shooting people with assault rifles," said the gun control advocate. "Those things are made for war, not for ownership." [PVC: Yep, gun control sure works great. Perhaps we should follow Chicago's lead, Mr. Sterns?]

Annette Elliott with Showmasters, Inc., one of the event organizers, told CBS 6 that they have seen a higher number of gun owners than previously.

Wounded Warrior, under an avalanche of pressure for a foolish statement about not wanting to appear on a show that deals with guns, is now trying to mend fences by having a representative on the "Gun Talk" radio show. I cannot think of a nicer, more friendly, and polite show to appear on than Tom Gresham's Gun Talk.

In a development that shocked veteran talk show host Tom Gresham of the nationally-syndicated Gun Talk Radio program, the Wounded Warrior Project "declined an interview request on Gun Talk Radio because it's a firearms-related show," the program reported yesterday on its Facebook page.

"I'm stunned at your email saying that the WWP doesn't participate in an interview or activity related to firearms," Gresham emailed the charity's public relations director, Leslie A. Coleman. "Inasmuch as there are 90 million gun owners and most of them support wounded veterans, I think they would be shocked to hear that they are, by way of their hobbies, somehow not worthy of helping with the Wounded Warriors Project."

Detroit - A customer at a restaurant on the southwest side fatally shot one of two men attempting to rob the place Wednesday night after one of the suspects shot the owner, police said.

Two men attempted to rob Adi's Coney Island at 10:10 p.m. on the 6100 block of Michigan Avenue. The would-be muggers shot the restaurant's owner and grazed another man.

A 51-year-old customer, who had a concealed pistol license, pulled out a gun and returned fire, killing one of the assailants, who was 29 years old.

The other alleged robber fled the scene, police said.

The owner and other victim were listed in stable condition.

Police say it's up to the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office whether any charges will be filed against the customer.

Maria Miller, spokeswoman for the Prosecutor's Office, said that it hasn't received any details on the incident as of 10 a.m. Charges could be filed if the office receives a request for a warrant, she said.

Editor's note: Daniel W. Webster is professor and director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

(CNN) -- At the sentencing of Jared Loughner, Mark Kelly, speaking on behalf of his wife, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, called out politicians for their "feckless leadership" when it comes to addressing gun violence in America.

"We have a political class that is afraid to do something as simple as have a meaningful debate about our gun laws and how they are being enforced," Kelly said. "We have representatives who look at gun violence not as a problem to solve, but as the white elephant in the room to ignore."

Giffords was shot at close range in the head by Loughner at a constituency event outside a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona, on January 8, 2011. Her survival and recovery are indeed miraculous, yet after many months of physical therapy, she struggles with her speech and walking. There were 18 other victims in the mass shooting, six of whom died.

Despite being rejected by the military because of a history of illicit drug use and being kicked out of a community college for repeated incidents of threatening and bizarre behavior, Loughner legally purchased a semi-automatic pistol with a magazine capable of holding 30 rounds of ammunition.

The politicians called out by Kelly and Giffords let the National Rifle Association bully them into thinking that gun owners don't want key flaws in our current gun laws fixed and that you can't win elections without the backing of the NRA. The millions of dollars the NRA spent in unsuccessful attempts to win close Senate races in swing states with high gun ownership rates -- Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin -- suggests that candidates can and do win despite strong NRA opposition.

The NRA portrays itself as an organization that speaks for and advocates for gun owners. The reality is that they speak for gun owners with the most extreme views and for the gun industry. A case in point is their opposition to requiring background checks for all firearm sales.

Under federal law and most states' law, only individuals who attempt to purchase firearms from licensed gun dealers must present a government-issued ID, sign a form stating that they do not fit any of the firearm prohibition categories and pass a criminal background check. But criminals and gun traffickers are given an easy alternative. They can simply purchase firearms from private sellers who do not require any of these checks.

Closing this absurd loophole would not be political suicide for politicians who fear losing the support of gun owners. A recent survey found that more than 80% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members want this loophole fixed. It seems likely that Giffords and Kelly, both gun owners, would be among this large majority favoring this reform.

Gun owners don't want dangerous people to have guns. So it seems doubtful that most gun owners think gun dealers should continue to be offered the special protections that Congress has bestowed on them, which reduce accountability and make it easier for criminals to get guns. When states require background checks for all handgun sales and have strong regulation and oversight of licensed gun dealers, far fewer guns are diverted to criminals.

Politicians could also strengthen our gun laws so that, for example, individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of violence (often pleaded down from felony charges) or those who have been convicted of multiple alcohol-related crimes are prohibited from possessing firearms. Studies have shown that these groups commit violent crimes at rates many times higher than population averages. Keeping guns from criminals and alcoholics isn't anti-gun -- it's pro-safety.

While nonfatal crime rates in the U.S. are comparable to other high-income countries, our homicide rate in the U.S. is seven times higher than that of other high-income countries, due in part to greater availability of handguns. We can reduce the homicide rate by restricting high-risk individuals from owning guns and eliminating legal protections that shady gun sellers and criminals exploit. Science and public opinion are in alignment.

It's time for elected officials to listen to the common sense reforms supported by the majority of gun owners and gun violence survivors such as Giffords.

Like many of their neighbors on East First Street, Bayonne's Henry Repeating Arms Company felt the effects of having waterfront property when superstorm Sandy hit on Oct. 29.

"This was beyond my imagination," said president and owner Anthony Imperato. "When we walked in the first day it was unnerving."

Henry Repeating's offices and factory occupy a 110,000-square-foot building on East First Street next to Brady's Dock.

The company is one of the country's leading rifle manufacturers and gets its name from Benjamin Tyler Henry, inventor of the first practical repeating rifle in 1860.

The company manufactures and sells approximately 250,000 rifles a year and employs 160 people at its Bayonne headquarters and staffs a facility in Rice Lake, Wis.

Imperato estimates that more than three feet of sea water flooded the computerized portion of the factory during Sandy, causing significant damage to more than 100 machines.

Although Imperato doesn't have an exact idea of replacement and repair costs, he said the cost is significant.

"We're looking at two or three (replacement machines) right now and they range in price from $150,000 to $400,000, so it adds up quickly, he said. "It's into the hundreds of thousands if not low millions."

In addition to machine damage, 20 percent of Henry Repeating's roof was blown off and the rear portion of the factory, including inventory, was flooded by approximately a foot and a half of sea water.

Henry's waterfront also sustained damage from several large, concrete objects, which Imperato was told were called defenders, that landed on the company's uncovered dock.

"They were tossed up here like a bar of soap floating in the tub," said Imperato.

About two weeks after the storm, Henry Repeating is open for business, but not fully operational. Employees are still sorting through flooded rifle parts, deciding which are salvageable and making repairs to equipment. Imperato says that while each factory department, such as assembly and polishing, is open, each is running at partial capacity.

"We have to rewire, we have to remove motors and put in replacement motors, so it's a painstaking process." he said.

Imperato said he credits his employees for the company's speedy recovery, saying many of them showed up the day after the storm to begin cleanup.

"It was cold, it was wet, it was dangerous and they all went in and started to do a good job," Imperato said.

Alan Vilardo, a Bayonne resident and employee at Henry Repeating, was one of the many who showed up to help with cleanup and said a lot of it comes down to loyalty.

"You can tell how many people care about this place by how many people showed up to help," Vilardo said.

Imperato said that Henry Repeating will take approximately another two to three weeks to fully recover. And while the damage will cause issues with the upcoming holiday season, Imperato said he's counting his blessings.

"I'm trying to look on the bright side," he said. "At this point we could have been out of business. It's going to be a miracle that it's going to be a four- to six-week recovery and I think we'll come back stronger from it."

**************************************************
23. Misattribution on "The Gun is Civilization" article last week
**************************************************

I got a lot of emails in short order last week pointing out that the great article titled "The Gun is Civilization" (item #10 in VCDL Update 11/18/12) was misattributed to Maj. L. Caudill USMC. The actual author is Marko Kloos.

Here is one of the many emails with the correct attribution. This one was sent to me by Bardford Wiles. Credit should always be given where credit is due. With almost 17,000 subscribers, NOTHING gets by you guys ;-)

--

I just wanted to send a note to let you know that the ""The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) is actually not attributed correctly. The real author's name is Marko Kloos. Here are two links:

I just got this email from Ernest Williams. Things can happen very quickly and sometimes you only have a second to evaluate a situation and react. In this case Ernest's police instincts kicked in, as he realized he was about to become a victim. That is until the person noticed that Ernest was armed, then everything changed...

--

I am a retired SWAT Lieutenant from Lynchburg PD.

Since Sept. 1st, when I retired, I have been working for a police supply company and travel some.

I am in Bristol, VA at the Ruby Tuesday right now.

A few minutes ago, at 5:35 PM, I pulled in to the parking lot in the dark and as I was backing into a parking space (as I always do), I noticed a thin, white male at the rear left of my vehicle.

He didn't think I saw him, but being " the way I am" as my wife says, I surely noticed him. As I exited my vehicle he moved quickly toward me with an obvious meth-produced expression. He was quickly within my personal space with his left hand reaching out and muttered "we have a problem and......."

He stopped speaking when he saw my S&W 1911 .45. He then froze, said "I guess not" and quickly left the area.

My personal responsibility and my 2nd Amendment right saved me from at least being robbed and probably a lot worse.

GUNS SAVE LIVES!

End of discussion!

-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.